Category: politics

Spoiled Children

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

I think parenting these days has gotten extremely lack—at least parenting of politicos and corporate folk. I’m seeing more and more spoiled children behavior out there. Don’t believe me? Here are two examples:

    Congress. Yup. Spoiled children. The attitude seems to be “I’m going to get my way, or I’ll have a temper tantrum. You can’t make me eat my vegetables. You can’t. You can’t.” Look at Mitch McConnell. He blames Obama, who in reality has given in to most of what the Republicans want, with much more cutting of the economy than I’m sure he would like to do (knowing Obama, he’d probably like to stimulate the economy with government funds, not cut). But Obama is willing to cut. But because Obama won’t give McConnell everything he wants, Obama’s the bad guy. In fact, any parental figure who seems to say “no” to the Republican children (which, I will readily admit, are not all Republicans). I’m beginning to think we need to take Congress to the woodshed to teach them a lesson in how to cooperate.

  • Amazon. Amazon is mad at California trying to get Amazon to collect use tax. So Amazon, in their traditional temper tantrum, cut off their affiliates. They actually don’t care about the affiliates. Most won’t bother to update their sites to remove the affiliate links in case the matter gets resolved… thus Amazon gets the referrals and doesn’t have to pay the affiliates. But Amazon knows it will lose in court, and so now they are trying to get a referendum to kill the sales tax law. I’m sorry, Amazon, but you should pay the tax. It’s like drinking your milk and eating your vegetables. You sell and deliver tangible goods in the state. Demonstrate that you are a good corporate citizen instead of just being greedy for your profits.

P.S. Speaking of children, the creator of programs that many of us older folk loved as kids has died. Sherwood Schwartz, creator of those thoughtful social explorations about blended families or the behaviors of stranded castaways, is dead at 94.

Share

Preparing for 2012

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

The American people, as a collective whole, are stupid.

As we’re gearing up to next year’s silly season, we’re all focusing on particular presidential candidates stand on some particular issue or another. Obama is trying to change his brand from “change”, attempting to argue he’s made tough decisions that will pay off. The Republicans are arguing that Obama has done nothing. They are arguing for all the things they will do, if only you put them in charge. Meanwhile, we focus our attention on whether Sarah Palin paid attention in history class or is just making it up as she goes along. Although that may be fun, it doesn’t make a difference. We’ve had stupid presidents before, and we’ll likely have them again.

We’re missing exploring how to resolve the most pressing issue facing this country. It’s not the debt limit. It’s not jobs. It’s not the economy. It’s congressional gridlock.

The President can have all the wonderful ideas he or she wants, but if they can’t get them through Congress, they’re out of luck. If Congress changes the President’s proposal from what the President thinks is right, he or she has no recourse other than the veto. Obama was barely effective when he had all of Congress from the party (thanks to the filibuster rule in the Senate, which gave the minority party far too much power). Nowadays, he’s completely ineffective because Congress is refusing to do anything.

Don’t believe me? Read this article from the LA Times on how Congressional gridlock may scuttle any effective action on the debt ceiling. Republicans, by not compromising on taxes, can continue to campaign on the no-new-taxes stance that is a cornerstone of their political strategy, while attacking Democrats and President Obama for their proposed tax increases on the wealthy. Democrats, whose political prospects have brightened since House Republicans proposed deep cuts in Medicare, have all but ruled out any deal that would relinquish the issue as a political weapon. Taking advantage of a pivotal moment to join together on landmark fiscal reforms would require both parties to yield on issues central to their ideology and reelection strategies. Translation: It ain’t gonna happen.

Now, I happen to be pro-Obama. But would it be any better under any of the Republican candidates? No. It is unlikely the Republicans would take control over both houses, given the love people have for congress. With Congress divided, nothing will get through. Even if the Republicans gain a majority in the Senate, they’ll be in the same position that the Democrats were in 2009: tied up by the filibuster rule giving the minority power.

We need to be asking our candidates how they are going to break this gridlock. We need to ask them how they are going to get Congress to move past their party ideology and work for the best of the country. This requires a politician with the political skill to work deals and create convincing arguments; it requires a politician with believable charisma and a strong control of the facts. It short, it requires attributes that none of our current or likely candidates have in abundance. The last candidates we had with this skill were LBJ, Reagan, and Clinton: they knew how to get people to put aside party and work together. I don’t believe Obama has this skill—he knows the facts, he knows what he wants, he even has the charisma, but he doesn’t appear to have the ability to convince people. Perhaps he would gain this in a second term; it’s amazing what being in your second and last term can do for blind alligience to party. As for the Republican candidates, most are too ideological rigid to be able to succeed at this. Most are lacking in charisma and persuasiveness; the only candidate with charisma is generally acknowledged to have only a passing familiarity with the facts. It might be interesting to see what happens if we have a repeat of Obama vs. McCain, with respect to this.

So, as we start silly season, keep this issue in mind. Does the candidate that you support have any viable abilities to get beyond the gridlock in Congress? Do they have the capability to convince the other party that at least a goodly portion of their position is correct?

Share

Politics as Usual

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

A number of political items in my lunchtime news reading over the week have been building up the head of steam, so it’s time to release some of the pressure.

I’ve been watching Sarah Palin’s bus trip with interest. I mentioned this earlier in the week, where I noted how she’s being true to her Fox exclusivity contract by talking to non-Fox media, and how she was encouraging Trump to run. Here are a few more items on the tour… on the tour’s recent visit to New York, she was spotted wearing a Magen David (Star of David), obstensibly in honor of Jerusalem Day, but some feel it might be pandering to Jewish voters. Odd vacation. She’s also been talking about Paul Revere… and getting it wrong (she thinks he did his warnings to preserve our rights to own guns … and were for the British). [ETA: Here are even more errors she has been making, courtesy of the Washington Post] But I think the biggest thing that has raised the steam was this article from the Washington Post about the Influence Industry. Who do you think is paying for Sarah Palin’s tour, which she claims is a personal vacation, not a campaign tour. Her PAC: SarahPAC. As she’s not a declared candidate, she can legally use the money for anything: paying her mortgage, personal vacations. And of course, this is just a vacation. To her kids it is; they are annoyed by the reporters. As for Palin herself? Her appearance in New Hampshire the day that Romney announced was just a coincidence. Well, my thought on this is: what she is doing may be legal, but it sure is not ethical, and it bothers me.

So far, I have yet to see the Republicans propose a viable candidate. Oh, sure, there are candidates that can appeal to the narrow conservative bases. But I don’t see one that can appeal to the independents and moderates sufficiently to win the election. USA Today has a nice editorial on that today, pointing out that the Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot by the rigorous adherence to the Tea Party and equivalent voices. There was another article I read (which, alas, I didn’t save) that indicated this is the same problem that doomed the Democrats in 1972—focusing far too much on adherence to the anti-Vietnam voices that they lost sight of the larger picture.

The Tea Party folks are hurting the country out of good intent, often because they either don’t understand how the system works (compromise), how the government is actually financed (which isnt’ like personal finances), or the need for some level of debt or spending to help during bad economic times. An example of this is their current push for a return to the gold standard, which almost all leading economists agree would be disasterous.

You combine this with the various economic news that has come out this week: both in terms of employment and housing. I’m wondering how this will play out in the election. Will Obama get the blame, even though he hasn’t been able to get any of his policies through Congress of late? Will the Republicans get the blame, for the glimmer of recovery turned back into a downturn after the Republicans took over the house and made progress difficult? There will be lots and lots of finger pointing to be sure.

I’m also annoyed by the folks who claim Obama is not supporting Israel. Just today, it was reported that conservative pro-Israel groups have launched TV ads and robo-calls attacking President Obama’s call for negotiations based on 1967 lines. Of course, they are misunderstanding the position: in particular, that it is the same position as President G. W. Bush had, and that it is not a return to the pre-“7 day war” borders, using those borders as a starting point for the negotiations, to be followed by mutually agreed land swaps (so that Israel can keep its settlements, east Jerusalem, and land required for strategic purposes, such as a connection to the Jordan River). Obama is also insisting on secure borders for Israel, and a non-militarized Palestinian state that recognizes Israel as Jewish. How that is lack of support for Israel is beyond me.

One last thing. The Birthers. I wish they would go away, and I wonder what their goal is? After 3 years, they aren’t going to invalidate the election. Even if their claims were true (which they are not), they would end up with Biden, who would endorse all of Obama’s actions. They would not end up with McCain, who did not win sufficient states. They can’t go back in time. To me, they are like the dog who is chasing the car… what does he think he will do if he catches it?

Share

Friday Afternoon Bonus: Whatever Became of Hubert?

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

A quick bonus highlighting a forgotten anniversary: Today is the 100th anniversary of the birth of Hubert Humphrey. Here’s a man who truly understood public service. A liberal (in the better sense of the word, not as it has been corrupted these days) who was proud of it, and who was also relatively fiscally sensical. My mother was a Humphrey-ite Democrat, and I think I inherited that. Humphrey could have been president, if he hadn’t been saddled with LBJ, and this country might have been much the better for it. For one thing, we wouldn’t have had Nixon and his excesses, and I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t have seen the rise of the neo-Conservatives in response.

P.S.: Another quickie: Chinese prisoners are forced to play World of Warcraft, because virtual money is more valuable than real goods.

Share

Observations on the Death of Bin Laden

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

  • Seen on Facebook: “rm -rf /bin/laden”. It’s a Unix joke. It’s OK to pretend to laugh.
  • I find it interesting that Bin Laden was killed on Holocaust Remembrance Day, and just a day or so off from the anniversary of when Adolph Hitler committed suicide. It was also 8 years to the day after Pres. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech.
  • There are those who expect the war in Afghanistan to end immediately. I don’t. Remember how long the war in Europe continued after Hitler’s death. There are still some pockets of Al Qaeda resistance to be cleaned out, plus we need to leave in such a way that the country remains stable. It will probably speed up the exit process, though.
  • Reading comments in the news-o-sphere, there are folks who do not believe Bin Laden is actually dead. They need to see the body themselves (and, presumably, the long-form death certificate). Bin Laden was supposedly buried at sea, reportedly in accordance with the Islamic tradition of quick burial, so that won’t happen (and even that burial at sea is upsetting some Islamic scholars), so there will likely be a “cult” that forms who believes this never happened. These can join the similar cults of the folks who believe the moon landing was faked and Obama was born in Kenya. It boggles my mind how there are some people who insist on personally seeing evidence for these types of events (Obama’s birth certificate, the moon landing, Bin Laden’s death), and truly disbelieve any evidence provided, and yet many of them are perfectly willing to believe that the miraculous stories of the Bible are, so to speak, the Gospel truth, with no equivalently strong physical evidence.
  • Last night, at around 740p, while we were waiting for the announcement and the news hadn’t yet leaked out about what the announcement was about, I turned to the friends we had over and said, “You know, the only thing I think this could be about is that they killed Osama”. Less than a minute later, the news was leaked. I also have the ability to walk by whatever old movie is playing on the TV and identify it. I guess that ability and a bank loan will get me a tank of gas.
  • There appears to be an intense debate whether Obama gets the credit for this. I think he should, just as he would have gotten the blame had Osama evaded capture during Obama’s term in office. Bush got the blame for not capturing him, potentially unjustifiably. People forget that’s why CEOs get the big bucks: just as they are unjustifiably given the credit when a company does well, they get the blame when something bad happens.
  • In light of these events, I think the question can legitimately be asked: So is the world now safer that Bin Laden is dead? I think the answer is “no”; in fact, it is arguably less safe in the short term, given the prospects of retaliation. Given the nature of terrorist organizations in general, and Al Qaeda in particular, there’s always going to be someone to fill-in the crazy kook leader power vacuum. Further, the greatest terrorist threat comes not from the terrorist organizations and people that you know, but the organizations and people that you don’t know.

    Is the death of Bin Laden a good thing? Ah, a different question. It is a good thing for America, in that it demonstrates American resolve and that we can complete an operation. Just as the failure in Vietnam and the long time it took to find Saddam hurt American’s international prestige, this is one factor the helps to rebuild it. It also demonstrates that our intelligence apparatus can work (and work together), which is a good thing for the hardworking people that support those operations. Far too often we’re quick to commend those who take the military action, and forget the analysts and operatives behind the action that made it a success.

    Is this a good thing for the world? Again, I think so, in that a significant symbol has been lost. This event demonstrates to those that work against terrorism that success is possible if you keep working at it. Unfortunately, just as with the people who don’t believe anything the government says (see above), this will just reinforce to the terrorists how wrong America is. We killed innocents in the attack; we buried him without respect for Islam—whatever the excuse—and mind you, it is just an excuse (just as the whole birth certificate controversy was an excuse)—it will be used to try and motivate the anger against the West. That’s the dangerous part, but the danger exists no matter what we do. It is our mere existance that is the thorn in the side of these organizations.

Share

Budget Rant #2: The State Morass

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

One additional lunchtime article talked about a state senate hearing on the state budget, and the potential of closing down one or more UC campusses. It’s about time that this question was raised.

I’ve been wondering to myself for a while whether we have overexpanded the UC and CSU system. Simply cutting the pay of the large staff isn’t enough. Mothballing campuses wholesale might be, but there are the tenure contracts that get in the way. At least it is worth discussing. But an even better idea is in the article: “Mac Taylor, the legislative analyst, told the panel that they might also consider transforming some UC campuses into liberal arts schools while concentrating research efforts at other locations.”

Now that’s a great notion and thought. Ignoring UCSF here, why must every UC be a full general purpose campus? Why can’t we have some that specialize in engineering whereas others have other specialities? This is what companies do: they realign facilities to eliminate duplication of effort. Perhaps such a realignment could permit UC to serve the same number of students at lower cost through more focused upper-division and graduate offerings (I recognize the lower-division courses would need to be the same at both). The same could be done for the CSU system.

Yes, I know this is a radical idea. But it is intriguing none-the-less. What do you think?

Share

Budget Rant #1: The Federal Morass

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

[Climbs on soapbox] I’ve been reading news headlines over lunch and getting more and more annoyed:

USA Today: Blame game intense as government shutdown looms
NY Times: Shutdown Near, No Sign of Compromise
LA Times: Still no deal to avert government shutdown
SF Chronicle: Time’s up: shutdown looms without agreement

Have these clowns forgotten who elected them and why they were elected?

Let’s start with the “who”: Michele Bachmann, the poster-girl for the Tea Party, who thinks the GOP hard-line is not extreme, was elected by 52% of the vote. Not 100%. Just because you don’t vote for your congresscritter doesn’t mean you don’t deserve a voice. John A. Boehner, the speaker? 66% of the vote. Harry Reid, the senate majority leader? 50.24% of the vote. Not a single elected senator, congresscritter, or even the President has 100% of the vote. This means they need to represent everyone in their district, and that means compromise.

Now, let’s turn to the “why”. Congresscritters and senators are elected to do the business of government: to investigate, and to pass legislation. It is a waste of taxpayer dollars to pass legislation you know has absolutely no chance of passing the other house and the President. You heard me: a waste of money. It has to be printed, circulated, debated, researched, and so much more that to do it for something that has no passage chance is foolish. Yet what has our congress been doing? Passing bills for political showmanship that they know have no chance in the other house. Bills must be crafted to represent the needs of all Americans—even those you might personally disagree with. The bills… and the budgets and appropriations… must represent that compromise. They haven’t been, and this is why we’re in this mess.

For all the talk of Tea Parties and going back to the original spirit of America… well, America was founded on compromise. Hell, Congress was a compromise, a way to balance the power of the small states and the large states. The original constitution was a compromise. The strength of America is in the diversity of opinions we can have, and perhaps what we need to be looking for is not positions that make one group happy at the expense of another, but a solution that makes everyone equally unhappy. To put it another way: a compromise is a position where you’ll be happy about somethings, and unhappy about somethings, and those somethings will differ from person to person, but the balance is sufficient that you can accept it.

We need to do something to remind our congresscritters of this, and the fact that compromise doesn’t just come from one side. [Climbs off soapbox]

Share

An Odd Thought

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

As I walked down and back to grab lunch, an odd thought hit me. I’ve been thinking about the partisan split over the budget. Poll numbers show that Republicans are more likely to want their leaders to push on with cuts while Democrats are more likely to favor some sort of compromise. In particular, the WSJ/NBC poll shows Republicans, especially those who favor the “tea party” movement, are more intransigent with 68% saying Republican leaders should stick to their tougher positions on budget cuts. Just 28% urged a compromise. Including less conservative Republicans, the numbers shift but a majority, at 56%, called for GOP lawmakers to stand firm while 38% want compromise. Playing into this are the reports on the particular factors causing the gridlock: According to Harry Reid, Democrats and Republicans in Congress have essentially agreed on spending levels for the rest of the year, but a budget deal is being held up by a split over policy measures related to Planned Parenthood funding and clean-air regulation. John Boehnerdenied that the so-called “riders” were driving the stalemate — saying he was committed to fighting for the most spending cuts possible.

Here’s my odd thought: Could the Republicans — or at least the Tea Party Republicans — actually want the shutdown without publically admitting it? After all, it instantly cuts the government back to just the essential services, without any congressional fighting or presidential involvement. If they can demonstrate that the country runs just fine when the government is in shutdown-mode, they can argue their case for deep cuts of those services that were furloughed. It achieves the goal.

Share